457
IRS braces for $500bn drop in revenue as taxpayers skip filings in wake of DOGE cuts
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025
457 points (100.0% liked)
Economics
676 readers
123 users here now
founded 2 years ago
Taxation is theft, so not paying them is fine by me. But if you're going to do so, you probably shouldn't be shouting about it on the internet.
No it's not. Not paying your taxes and using public services is more arguably theft.
So you enjoy killing people. Got you. Because that's what your tax money is used for. To fund wars halfway across the globe. For people you've never met and who have caused you no harm.
What a disingenuous take. Surely you can see how no one's going to take that message seriously, and no one will be convinced?
Taxes also pay for health care, roads, libraries, arts, and countless other things. Do you hate health care, roads, libraries, and art? I mean, maybe, but I wouldn't be confident about guessing that based solely on your position on taxation.
None of this is supporting your initial claim of "taxation is theft"
Oh yes, because the United States has such great healthcare that a CEO was shot in broad daylight on the streets of New York. But a couple of months ago. As for roads and libraries and such, that's what state taxes are for. Mind you, I somewhat disagree with state taxation as well, but at least state taxation benefits you directly.
You have an issue with capitalism not taxation and that's ignoring the fact that if we reverted back to pre 1940 tax schemes we would be taking in more money and only the richest people in America would pay a dime.
Cut 99% of the government, and you could accomplish that. If nothing else, you could always eliminate the income tax and put consumption taxes on goods besides groceries and housing. An income tax disincentivizes making more income, but a consumption tax would disincentivize needless consumption.
Are you Elon Musk? Because "cut 99% of the government" is the kind of uninformed ass-pull I would epxect from him.
Consumption taxes on goods is extremely regressive. That will tremendously impact the poor.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh yes, because eliminating groceries and housing from the consumption tax hurts the poor so badly because the poor need to buy five cars and ten yachts, etc.
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. No one is talking about poor people buying five cars and yachts. I'm talking about how when you're poor, and you're trying to make what little you have cover (for example) clothing, paying $10 in taxes is a bigger portion, and thus hurts more, than if you were rich and had to pay the same tax.
Do you know how money works? How the more money you have, the less each dollar matters?
What I'm attempting to say, and apparently not getting across properly, is that if the common day-to-day items that you need to live your life are exempt from the consumption tax, then the poor people would never have to pay it.
If food was exempt from the consumption tax, then nobody would have to pay the consumption tax, because everybody eats food. Both rich and poor people.
Another example would be shirts. How many new shirts does the average person need per year? Set the consumption tax to apply to any purchase of shirts more frequently than that. If a person needs two shirts per year, then those two shirts would not be taxed, and the third shirt and beyond would be. So you still get shirts, and you don't have to pay the tax.
You need a new car, say once every 10 years, and you can buy one car every 10 years without getting the consumption tax. But if you want more than one car in that time frame, then you pay the consumption tax, etc.
Mind you, this is if we agree that taxation is needed at all, anyway.
And who would exactly make sure that you are not going over the amount of shirts to dodge the consumption tax? With no IRS and without 99% of the government I assume nobody???
That's a good point. Which is why it's probably a better idea to just have the consumption tax apply to everybody equally instead of different levels, because otherwise you would end up creating a surveillance state. Well, not like we already don't have one, but still, that's a different story.
If a poor person needs a new shirt, they will go buy a shirt and wear it until they can't anymore. Whereas if a rich person goes, they will buy 10 shirts instead of just one. So the poor person gets hit with the consumption tax and the rich person gets hit with 10 times the consumption tax.
A poor person would buy a car, say once every ten years, and pay the consumption tax one time, where a rich person goes out and buys ten really expensive cars, and not only pays the consumption tax on the car itself, but ends up paying an extreme amount more because of the branding of the car. The poor person buys a Honda Civic to get them to and from work, where the rich person buys a Bugatti.
Ok, I kind of get what you're going for, but that's still a very regressive taxation model. Assuming we could reach some consensus on "taxation has a place in government", in my opinion you want to tax people who can better afford it. This is why flat taxes kind of suck.
Like let's say we did a flat 10% tax of money. Someone who makes $10,000 pays $1000, and is left with $9000. Barely enough to live on. Someone who makes $1,000,000 pays $100,000 and is left with $900,000, which is a shit load of money. This is why progressive taxation is more popular. We say, don't tax the first $10,000 at all, then tax stuff from like $10,001 to $100,000 at 10%, then $100,001 to $500,000 at 20%, and everything above that at 50%. (Numbers made up). Now people who have a lot of money pay more, and the cost of being rich scales.
We don't really want very wealthy people. We don't want money and power to consolidate in the hands of a few people. We want a flatter distribution of wealth. Now you have more people living life, having ideas, making inventions and art. If you put all the money in the hands of a few, and everyone else struggles to meet their basic needs, your society isn't going to thrive.
Taxing what people purchase would be regressive, because there's a certain floor for what everyone needs to buy. Some rich guy just isn't buying so much more stuff that it's going to work out.
The progressive tax, as you have more money, is clearly working. Because Elon Musk exists, and Jeff Bezos exists. If it was truly working properly, these types of people would not exist. The idea appears to make sense, but we're living it and it's not working.
Progressive taxation has been systematically attacked by conservatives for years. That's why you see people saying we should make the top marginal tax rate back to 90% like it was in the 60s. https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates
You also need to address problems like stepped-up-basis, and buy-borrow-die strategies. I think there are also unpatched problems with corporate income, but I'm less familiar with the details there.
This is a complicated and storied part of humanity. I really recommend reading more about it.
You're like 70 percent water, can we remove that and expect you to function?
That's kind of the point. We don't need a functional government because we don't need government at all. Governments want us to think we need them when we do not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ0Qkhnt6bQ
That's immensely dumb and highlights a basic misunderstanding of government.
That is irrelevant to your claim of "Taxation is theft". Taxes pay for programs like medicare, medicaid, and social security, which are extremely popular.
Pushing stuff down to the state level makes coordination difficult, some projects impossible, and again is irrelevant to your argument that taxation is theft
If taxes pay for Social Security, then why do I keep hearing that Social Security is bankrupt or will be by like 2031? If pushing taxation down to the state level makes a project impossible to do, then perhaps that project should not have been done to begin with.
Because conservatives have been trying to kill social security since its inception. It shouldn't really be in any danger of insolvency, barring conservative sabotage. A trivial search finds many articles about this: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/retirement/social-security-bankrupt/
This is clearly pants on head stupid. Postal service. Interstate transit systems. Weather forecasting. Just off the top of my head.
And again, one more time, you haven't backed up your initial claim that "Taxation is theft".
Taxation is theft simply because you did not agree to it or you did not have a choice but to agree to it. The only difference between the IRS demanding taxes from you and a street criminal demanding part of your paycheck every month not to hurt you is that you see the IRS as legitimate where you see the street criminal as a criminal. But they are both criminals.
You have a choice, go somewhere government isn't but I guarantee you choose not to.
Right, I'm all ears. Where exactly on planet Earth can you go that is not ruled by a government? As far as I can tell, you have no choice.
Nowhere that's the point. There are places that have very little actual government and a lot of violence or places with lots of government and comparably less freedom to do some things. You choose, you just don't like your choices and that's understandable, what's not understandable is assuming no government is better than functional government.
Somalia is a libertarians wet dream so I hear
I wouldn't know. I only know how the western world portrays Somalia. And I'm guessing that's what you're basing your comment on.
Go there and report back bruh. Check out the Congo too while you're at it.
Don't mistake what I am saying as denigrating to the Somalian people. They are hard working and trying to get by.
Why are they both criminals? What law are they going breaking? I think the IRS, as part of the sovereign government of the US, cannot really be criminal. I think that's getting into some like philosophy of "what is the state?" stuff though, which is beyond my expertise.
You seem to be rejecting the whole idea of social contracts and representative government. Which, ok, but that's going against quite a long history.
Of course the IRS isn't breaking the laws, because they write the laws, and therefore they can exempt themselves from said laws. If you tried to do the same thing the IRS does, you would be arrested. So for the same action, you get penalized while this other group gets legitimized.
That doesn't explain how they are "criminal". that was the word you used.
Many things are either subject to penalties or legitimacy based on context. If you cut someone open and take out their kidney, that's probably a crime! Unless you're a doctor doing a surgery in a hospital. Context matters.
When you were born, were you given the option to sign a contract agreeing to the taxation policy? If not, were you given the choice and free will to leave with the full understanding that you would try to find an area that better suited you? If the answer to these questions are no, which I'm going to assume they are, then you did not agree to the taxation policy and were not given the option. Therefore, it is a criminal act. If a doctor cuts out your kidney, it's because you gave consent for that to occur.
That's not what criminal act means. Criminal means it's a violation of a law.
Tax policy comes from the laws that are made (typically) by elected representatives. That's the government we live under, which is allegedly maintained by the consent of the people. If you knock that pillar out and just say "Government only applies to people who explicitly consent" then you're going to get some hellish mix of sovereign citizens and the purge.
Like, if you're not consenting to the laws of the US, can I just shoot you dead? Why not? Are you cherry-picking which laws you want to apply?
You can't really seriously be making the "I didn't ask to be born and thus I'm not subject to the rules of the land" argument, can you? I feel like every teenager comes up with that point, and then takes like a history class or philosophy class.
Well, to be fair, the teenager has a point and then they go and take a history class or a philosophy class which indoctrinates them to the government's worldview. School is to teach kids the "approved" narrative.
That's a pretty big claim that like all of philosophy is the "approved" narrative. I don't have a degree in history or philosophy, but maybe read up on like Hobbes and Kant?
You didn't respond to my part in the middle asking if you're just cherry-picking laws.
(Also I have to go get dinner and such, so I'm going to stop responding in a bit. This has been interesting.)
I unfortunately can't find the damn thing right now, but there's a YouTube video that talks about rules without rulers and discusses a world in which laws are made and enforced by market participants. So you would have security company A, and somebody else would have security company B. And if there was a dispute between the two individuals, the companies would mediate on their behalf. If Alice steals a television from Bob, then bob's security company will ask Alice's security company to allow them to seek monetary compensation from Alice or the return of the television. If Alice says that she did not steal Bob's television and Alice's security company agrees with her, then the two security companies would take the case to a binding arbitrator and let them decide and respect their decision on the matter.
Edit: found it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ0Qkhnt6bQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Ibq-9wulQ
This sounds like it would devolve into monopolies or cartels, which are famously bad for end users.
Also what happens if someone doesn't have private security? Are they just unprotected?
You're kind of describing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism which isn't taken seriously by many people because it has a lot of big problems.
You might also enjoy "A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear", which you can read about https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling , or probably get a copy at your local library (if it hasn't been defunded and shut down)
I appreciate you taking the time to find the video you found compelling, but right this moment I can't watch a 23 minute video in entirety. I usually prefer transcripts, personally.
I actually have read a libertarian walks into a bear, which I did find to be a rather interesting book. As for the security, different companies would have to compete to offer their services at a rate that the market could handle. Most people don't need the police very often, so the service would have to be rather cheap and just split among a bunch of people. When I hear people talk about how expensive private security is, I'm assuming what they're imagining is people that are hired to follow you around 24-7 and guard your body where this would be more similar to what we currently have, where you call only when you need assistance. You would also get far less punishment for victimless crimes such as smoking joints, which prosecutors currently absolutely love. I've heard former police people who are now police reform advocates talk about their time working where they would convict people on marijuana cases and have so many of them that they did not have time to get around to rape and murder cases, etc.
Why would the different companies compete when they could form a Trust instead?
Do private companies have the right to use violence? If so, you've kind of invented Cyberpunk2077 / Shadowrun, which notably are dystopias
Are you certain they wouldn't try to profit from victimless crimes? What's going to stop them?
And what happens if someone just doesn't have security? Or it's like private health insurance in the US, where it's a huge mess and your claims get rejected?
Stuff like marijuana laws should definitely be changed. The war on drugs is racist nonsense.
I really don't think anarcho-capitalism is the way to go.
Admittedly, trusts are definitely not something I understand well. But it seems like the easier you make starting a competitor, the easier it would be to keep a trust from forming.
The oil trusts of the early 1900s seemed like they were difficult to break without governments because of the fact that oil is a difficult thing to get a hold of. It's not something you can just go out with a small water pump and pull out of the ground.
A security company wouldn't have such a moat around them to keep out competitors. At least that's what it would seem like anyway.
As to whether these security companies could use violence. I think that would have to be on a case-by-case basis where violence would not be used in most cases unless there is active aggression occurring or imminent upon somebody they are to protect. In which case the use of force would be retaliatory and not aggression.
If a security company thinks that another security company is using unjustifiable force, then it could always be taken to an arbitrator or outed in the media.
Once the trust gets big enough, they can run other competitors into the ground even without doing violence.
You kind of see this with food stores in the US. You have some small shops, and then a mega corp like Walmart or whatever moves into the neighborhood. They can undercut the small shops due to scale, or even by operating at a loss. They can operate at a loss longer than the smaller companies can stay solvent. When all the small shops close up (or get acquired), the big company can then raise prices.
Behavior like that is just emergent from "free markets".
That's not even touching on the idea that they could just do violence to secure their position. Like old union busting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States might be worth a read, even though it's not exactly on this topic.
Who decides on the case by case? If anyone can form their own private security company, and can unilaterally decide that lethal force is authorized, that's a recipe for disaster. Alex hates his neighbor Bob. Alex forms a security company of his own. Bob comes home and walks over the flowerbed again, so Alex confronts him. Bob raises his voice. Alex decides this is imminent aggression, and shoots him dead.
Who is the arbitrator? Why does anyone listen to them? What is their enforcement mechanism? Are you reinventing a court system?
You're kind of reinventing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism still, which has a lot of problems.
I will have to read about the union busting so will only respond to the second bit
Alex can indeed form his own one man security company and shoot bob dead if he wishes to die as well. Because when bob is killed bob's security service will go after alex and persue the death penalty against alex. Alex's newly formed security company (himself) won't have the resources to defend him. When bob security vs alex security gets heard in arbitration the arbitrator is going to rule in favor of bob security which will then carry out the death penalty against alex. If the arbitrator ruled in favor of alex even though he was clearly in the wrong that arbitrator would rapidly be discredited and their business would shrink as security companies use the arbitrators compeditors.
Its modern court but without government monopoly. The government is a "trust".
Why would Alex listen to the other arbiter? Why not shoot them, too? Why not get a bunch of your friends, and fight your enemies until you establish yourself as a local warlord? That's what these security companies would be positioned to do, and that's going to bring out the worst of humanity.
Meanwhile, what if Bob was behind on his payments? Is this going to be like The Purge, where you can just do crimes to anyone who can't afford private security? That's going to extra suck for groups that are historically economically disadvantaged (women, children, descendants of slaves, chronically ill, to name a few)
And again, there's not really a reason for these different entities to compete when they can instead form a cooperative trust. That's sort of the history of the gilded age in the US. it sucked for most people.
It sounds like it's going to devolve into the rule of might-makes-right, where whoever has the most guns and willing soldiers gets to say what's what. Real life has at least some thin wrappers around might-makes-right, with rights enumerated in the constitution